Rynox Gears Vs. Steelite India

Introduction:The Bombay High Court has once again demonstrated its zero-tolerance approach towards litigants who approach the court with unclean hands while simultaneously underscoring the limited scope of passing off actions when parties operate in non-overlapping segments of the same broad industry. Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application filed by Rynox Gears against Steelite India, holding that no case of trademark infringement arises against a registered proprietor and that the passing off claim fails on multiple counts including suppression of material facts, absence of goodwill in the relevant segment, and insufficient similarity between the composite marks. The ruling serves as a stark reminder that false pleadings about product lines and service of notices can result in outright dismissal at the threshold stage, even before merits are fully examined, and that common field of activity remains a relevant but not decisive factor in passing off jurisprudence.

Factual Background:Rynox Gears, a Mumbai-based partnership firm established in 2012, has been marketing motorcycle protective accessories such as jackets, gloves, pants, and luggage systems under the trademark “RYNOX”. The word mark was applied for on 31 August 2016 with a user claim since 16 February 2012 and published in the Trade Marks Journal on 23 January 2017. A device mark incorporating the word “RYNOX” was applied for in 2019. The plaintiff maintains an e-commerce website at https://rynoxgear.com and has secured approximately 23 registrations across classes. Substantial promotional expenses and sales turnover (Rs. 42 crores in 2022-2023) are pleaded to establish goodwill.

Steelite India, a Delhi-based partnership constituted in 2016, adopted the mark “RHYNOX” (with a distinctive rhinoceros device and stylised “X”) as a homage to the state animal of Assam. The defendant claims use since December 2016 for safety helmets, applied for registration in Class 9 on 2 January 2017, and secured registration without opposition on 28 November 2020. The defendant also registered the domain www.rhynoxhelmets.co.in in 2019 and has been continuously marketing helmets since 2017, supported by a Chartered Accountant’s certificate of turnover. The defendant asserts honest adoption after a trademark search that did not reveal the plaintiff’s then-unpublished application.

Procedural Background:The plaintiff instituted Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No.35513 of 2024 seeking injunction for infringement and passing off. Along with the suit, Interim Application (Lodging) No.897 of 2025 was moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The defendant filed a limited affidavit-in-reply raising suppression of facts, denial of jurisdiction, and asserting prior adoption and registration. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder attempting to establish cognate goods and explaining the cease-and-desist notice dated 25 October 2023. Both sides advanced detailed oral submissions. The matter was reserved on 25 February 2026 and pronounced on 17 March 2026.

Reasoning: Court addressed the infringement claim and held that Section 28(3) and Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 expressly protect co-existing registered proprietors from infringement actions against each other. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson, the court noted that it can go beyond registration only in cases of ex facie illegality or fraud shocking the conscience of the court. Here, the defendant’s registration preceded the plaintiff’s publication and was granted without opposition; no pleadings or arguments assailed its validity on fraud grounds. Thus, no prima facie case for infringement existed.

Turning to passing off, the court found the plaintiff guilty of making false statements on oath. The plaint repeatedly claimed the plaintiff manufactured and marketed helmets since 2012, a fact contradicted by the defendant and not supported by evidence; the rejoinder shifted to a new plea of “cognate” or “allied” goods only after the defence was raised. Similarly, the plaint asserted receipt of the cease-and-desist notice and consequent takedown of the defendant’s website, yet the rectification application filed by the plaintiff itself admitted the notice was returned undelivered. The rejoinder compounded the falsehood by claiming misplaced proof of delivery. Citing Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., the court held that a litigant approaching with unclean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits and the application deserved dismissal at the threshold.

Even on merits, the court found no case for passing off. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate goodwill in the helmet segment as on the date of the defendant’s adoption in 2016; sales figures were for riding gear, not helmets. The composite marks were dissimilar—the defendant’s rhinoceros device and exaggerated “X” provided sufficient added matter to distinguish, as held in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories. A solitary e-commerce instance on Meesho was insufficient to prove misrepresentation or likelihood of deception. Common field of activity, though relevant per Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., was absent; helmets and riding apparel target different consumer expectations and trade channels. Balance of convenience favoured the defendant, who had built a running business since 2017.

Judgements with complete citation discussed and decision of court:The court placed central reliance on Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson ((2014) SCC OnLine Bom 4596) to hold that infringement relief is unavailable against a registered proprietor unless registration is ex facie illegal or fraudulent. Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. ((2010) 14 SCC 38) was cited for the principle that unclean hands disentitle a party from equitable relief at the interim stage. Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. & Ors. (1995 SCC OnLine Bom 312) was invoked to emphasise that while common field is not the sole criterion, it remains a relevant factor and misrepresentation must be shown from the perspective of the public’s state of mind. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories (1964 SCC OnLine SC 40) was applied to hold that added matter in a composite mark can sufficiently distinguish goods.

The defendant’s submissions on co-existence and bona fide adoption were accepted in light of the sequence of registration dates. In the result, the Interim Application was dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs. The suit was directed to proceed to trial on remaining issues.

Point of law settled in the case:The judgment settles that false statements regarding product lines, service of notices, and suppression of material facts in pleadings constitute unclean hands sufficient to dismiss an interim injunction application at the threshold without examining the merits of passing off. In co-existence of registered trademarks, infringement relief is statutorily barred unless registration is challenged and shown to be ex facie illegal or fraudulent. For passing off, goodwill must be demonstrated in the specific segment in which the defendant trades as on the date of the defendant’s adoption; mere association with a broader industry is insufficient. Composite marks with distinctive devices and stylised elements provide added matter that can negate misrepresentation even if word elements are phonetically similar. A solitary instance of confusion on an e-commerce platform is inadequate to prove likelihood of deception.

Case Title: Rynox Gears Vs. Steelite India

Date of Order: 17.03.2026

Case Number: Interim Application (Lodging) No.897 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No.35513 of 2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:8734

Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article:

1. Bombay High Court Dismisses “RYNOX” Injunction Bid: Unclean Hands and Distinct Segments Seal Fate of Passing Off Claim
2. Unclean Hands Doctrine in Action: Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief in Motorcycle Gear vs Helmet Trademark Battle
3. No Infringement Against Registered Proprietor: Detailed Analysis of Rynox Gears v. Steelite India Ruling

Suitable Tags: Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Unclean Hands, Common Field of Activity, Registered Marks Co-existence, Motorcycle Accessories, Helmets, Bombay High Court, Suppression of Facts, Interim Injunction

Headnote of Article

In Rynox Gears v. Steelite India (2026:BHC-OS:8734), the Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s interim injunction application holding that no infringement lies against a registered proprietor and passing off fails due to the plaintiff’s unclean hands through false pleadings on helmets and notice service, absence of goodwill in the helmet segment, dissimilar composite marks with added rhinoceros device, and insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. The ruling reinforces that suppression and falsehoods disentitle equitable relief at the threshold and that common field remains a relevant but not decisive factor in passing off actions.

Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anannya Agro Products & Anr.

Introduction:The Division Bench, Bombay High Court sets aside a trial court order that had refused temporary injunction to a long-standing Pune-based manufacturer against alleged imitators. The case revolves around the mark “GERMINATOR” – a word coined and used since 1981 for a germination-enhancing formulation – and its distinctive trade dress. The appellate court meticulously examined the cardinal classifications of trademarks (generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary/fanciful) while emphasising that courts cannot travel beyond pleadings, that descriptive claims require concrete evidence, and that unilateral post-suit amendments to infringing labels cannot sanitise dishonest adoption. This decision not only grants interim protection pending trial but also settles important propositions on the interplay between passing off actions, trade dress protection, and the doctrine against forum-shopping through belated trade dress modifications.

Factual Background:Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant and original plaintiff, traces its roots to predecessors who conceptualised and commercially launched the “GERMINATOR” formulation in 1981. The mark gained widespread recognition among agriculturists across India through continuous, extensive use. The company was formally incorporated on 24 April 2009. Another flagship product, “HARMONY”, has been in use since 2010 and enjoys registered trademark status (No. 4201889 dated 10 June 2019). The appellant’s initial trademark application for “GERMINATOR” (No. 3505073 filed 4 March 2017 claiming user since 1981) was erroneously declared abandoned in 2023; a review remains pending. A fresh application (No. 6750663 filed 11 December 2024) has been accepted and advertised. Internationally, the mark stands registered in the United Kingdom since 20 March 2017.

The respondents – Anannya Agro Products and Avishkar Agro Chem – began marketing an identical formulation under the same mark “GERMINATOR” with an almost identical bottle trade dress. A customer alert in February 2025 triggered the discovery. The respondents also planned to launch a product under the appellant’s registered mark “HARMONY”. Investigation revealed systematic imitation aimed at riding upon the appellant’s established goodwill. The appellant’s evidence included audited sales turnover from 2010-11 to 2023-24, awards to founder Dr. Vinayak Bawaskar, invoices dating back to 1997, promotional materials, newspaper articles, and e-commerce listings – all demonstrating decades of uninterrupted reputation.

Procedural Background:The appellant instituted Commercial Suit No.9 of 2025 before the District Judge-2, Pune, seeking reliefs for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in the artistic label. An interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed. On 2 April 2025 the trial court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction and allowed joinder of causes of action. The respondents continued sales, prompting a contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and, conversely, their application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of injunction. On 2 July 2025 the respondents undertook to change trade dress for “GERMINATOR” and not launch “HARMONY”; they tendered a revised label photograph.

The trial court, by impugned order dated 4 October 2025 rejected the injunction prayer, holding “GERMINATOR” to be generic and, alternatively, descriptive without secondary meaning. The order was kept in abeyance till 4 November 2025. The appellant approached the High Court in Commercial Appeal From Order No.28 of 2025 with Interim Application No.12806 of 2025. The High Court stayed the impugned order on 4 November 2025. Affidavits, rejoinders, and voluminous written submissions were exchanged. The appeal was reserved on 6 February 2026 and pronounced on 16 March 2026.

Reasoning: The Division Bench opened its analysis by observing that the impugned order suffered from foundational infirmities that rendered it vulnerable to appellate interference. The trial court had labelled “GERMINATOR” a “generic” word – a finding completely dehors the pleadings, as the respondents never pleaded genericity. Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum in Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, the Bench held that decisions cannot rest on grounds outside the pleadings; the case pleaded alone must be decided. Even the respondents’ counsel conceded the trial court’s use of “generic” was loose terminology for “descriptive”, yet the appellate court found no evidentiary basis for even the descriptive classification. The respondents produced no material showing third-party descriptive use of “GERMINATOR” in relation to germination aids; undated photographs from e-commerce (Exh.48) were insufficient.

The Bench accepted the appellant’s documented prior use since 1981 (well before the respondents’ December 2024 entry and their licensor Seema Jain’s 2014 registration). Sales figures, invoices, awards, and promotional evidence established tremendous goodwill and reputation. The appellant’s trade dress – distinctive bottle design with prominent “Dr. Bawaskar” branding – had acquired secondary meaning. Agriculturists, being persons of imperfect recollection, would associate the mark and dress exclusively with the appellant’s product.

Crucially, the court rejected the respondents’ reliance on their post-suit revised trade dress. Citing the “Safe Distance Rule” from Marico Limited v. K.L.F. Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the principle that courts cannot approve revised marks (R.R. Oomerbhoy Private Limited v. Court Receiver), the Bench held that legality must be tested on the infringing label that prompted the suit. Allowing unilateral amendments would encourage endless litigation and reward dishonesty. The respondents’ adoption of identical dress, coupled with their earlier undertaking not to use “HARMONY” and their late offer to modify only after sensing defeat, demonstrated clear intent to pass off.

The Bench further noted inconsistencies in the respondents’ stand: they secured a permissive licence from Seema Jain (implying the mark is protectable) yet later withdrew it, blowing hot and cold. Suppression of earlier dismissed suits by the appellant was not material, as those suits involved different marks or parties and did not operate as estoppel in passing off. The doctrines of acquiescence and prosecution history estoppel were inapplicable on facts. Ultimately, the trifecta of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury was overwhelmingly in the appellant’s favour. The trial court’s failure to apply settled tests warranted reversal.

Judgements with complete citation discussed and decision of court:The Bench discussed and distinguished several authorities placed by both sides. For the appellant, reliance was placed on R.R. Oomerbhoy Private Limited Vs. Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. (2003 (5) Mh.L.J. 372) to hold that defendants cannot seek judicial approval for revised trade marks; K.L.F. Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Marico Limited Vs. K.L.F. Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2734) for the Safe Distance Rule that de minimis fixes do not cure confusion once sown; Hem Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITC Ltd. (2012 SCC Online Bom 551) that descriptive intent is irrelevant if public perceives use as trademark; Pidilite Industries Ltd. Vs. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 50) that licence agreements reveal the mark’s distinctiveness; Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal and Anr. Vs. M.S.S. Food Products ((2012) 2 SCC 196) on correction of illegal discretionary orders; and Medley Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (2002 SCC OnLine Bom 444) on appellate interference when correct tests are not applied.

For the respondents, the court considered but distinguished Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani & Anr. (2010 2 SCC 142), Garware Polyester Ltd. v. 3M Company and Ors. (MANU/MH/1150/2016), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 853), and others on suppression and acquiescence, holding them either factually inapplicable or limited to infringement rather than passing off of long-used marks.

In the result, the court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 4 October 2025, and granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from passing off “GERMINATOR” or any deceptively similar mark or trade dress pending final disposal of the suit. The interim application did not survive. No order as to costs. Status quo was directed for four weeks on the respondents’ oral request for stay.

Point of law settled in the case:The judgment settles that a trial court cannot characterise a mark as generic when the defence never pleaded it; descriptive claims require positive evidentiary material from the defendant showing common descriptive use in the trade; prior continuous user since 1981 coupled with sales, promotion, and awards can confer secondary meaning and protectability even for dictionary-derived words in niche agricultural markets; unilateral post-suit amendments to trade dress cannot be relied upon at the interim stage to defeat a prima facie case of passing off; and appellate courts must interfere when the trial court fails to apply the settled trifecta test or travels beyond pleadings. The decision reinforces that passing off protection for trade dress and goodwill operates independently of registration status and survives earlier unrelated dismissals or abandoned applications.

Case Title: Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anannya Agro Products & Anr.

Date of Order: 16th March 2026

Case Number: Commercial Appeal From Order No.28 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:12950-DB

Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Coram: R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

NEC Corporation Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs

1. Calcutta High Court Landmark Ruling: Graphic User Interfaces Qualify as Registrable Designs under the Designs Act, 2000 – A Purposive Interpretation for the Digital Age
2. GUI Designs No Longer Excluded: In-Depth Analysis of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur’s Judgment Overturning Controller’s Narrow View on Industrial Design Protection
3. From Software Codes to Protectable Designs – Calcutta HC Clarifies Registrability of GUIs in Consolidated Appeals

Suitable Tags: #CalcuttaHighCourt #DesignsAct2000 #GUIRegistration #GraphicUserInterface #IndustrialDesigns #IntellectualPropertyIndia #LocarnoClassification #CryogasEquipment #UpdatingConstruction #IPLaw #DigitalInnovation #ControllerOfPatents #DualProtection #TRIPSCompliance

Introduction

In a landmark pronouncement that bridges traditional industrial design jurisprudence with contemporary digital innovation, the High Court at Calcutta delivered a comprehensive judgment on 9 March 2026 that decisively settles the question of whether Graphic User Interfaces can be registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, presiding over five consolidated statutory appeals, meticulously examined the statutory definitions of “article” and “design”, rejected the Controller’s unduly restrictive interpretation, and held that GUIs are not per se ineligible for protection. The ruling underscores that a GUI, comprising iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, inherently satisfies the visual features contemplated by Section 2(d) when applied to an article such as a display screen or finished electronic device through an industrial process broadly understood to include digital rendering. By invoking principles of updating construction to accommodate technological evolution and drawing persuasive value from both Indian and foreign precedents, the court has not only set aside multiple rejection orders but has also aligned Indian design law with international practices prevalent in 92 per cent of jurisdictions as per WIPO surveys. This decision heralds greater legal certainty for technology companies, reduces potential litigation, and ensures that India remains competitive in protecting digital assets under the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.

Factual Background

The appeals stemmed from a series of design applications filed by leading global and Indian entities seeking protection for innovative GUIs displayed on electronic screens. NEC Corporation’s application No. 285453 claimed novelty residing in the shape and pattern of a display screen hosting a GUI, which the Controller rejected on the ground that the GUI itself does not constitute an article under Section 2(a) and is merely software codes lacking permanence. ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH’s application No. 277243, initially titled “A Display Unit for a High Frequency Generator” and later amended to “Display Screen for an Electrosurgical High Frequency Generator”, was turned down because the GUI was visible only when the device was switched on and connected to a computing system, rendering it purely functional without consistent eye appeal. Abiomed Inc. faced rejection of applications Nos. 397600-001 and 397600-002 for “Display Panel or Portion thereof with Graphical User Interface” intended for vehicle dashboards, the Controller holding that the pictogram displayed on the screen could not be registered. TVS Motor Company Limited’s application No. 393339-001 for a GUI design was refused on the additional ground that it lacked reasons in the order, amounting to violation of natural justice, and that a GUI cannot be judged solely by the eye or possess a sense of touch. In each instance the Controller proceeded on the premise that the 2021 amendment to the Design Rules incorporating GUI under Locarno Class 14-04 was merely administrative and could not override the unamended definitions in the parent Act, that GUIs are not applied by industrial means, cannot be sold or manufactured separately, and are already protected under copyright as artistic works, precluding dual protection.

Reasoning

The court commenced its analysis by setting out the positive and negative limbs of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, emphasising that the definition is not confined to physical tangibility but extends to any features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article by any industrial process, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, and judged solely by the eye. It clarified that the design and the article are distinct; the relevant article for a GUI may be the display unit itself or the finished consumer product such as a smartphone, tablet or automobile dashboard. The expression “article of manufacture” received a liberal interpretation, drawing upon the United States Supreme Court’s observation in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc. that it covers “a thing made by hand or machine”, and the subsequent recognition in Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Corp. that even software qualifies. The court rejected the fallacy that every article must possess physical embodiment, noting that such a narrow approach would permanently exclude digital and virtual designs.

Turning to the phrase “applied to an article by any industrial process”, the judgment highlighted that the word “any” preceding “industrial process” is deliberately expansive and not limited to the illustrative manual, mechanical or chemical methods. The process of displaying a GUI involves systematic manipulation of electronic signals and precise rendering by advanced hardware, fitting squarely within modern industrial enterprise. The court applied the doctrine of updating construction, citing Bennion on Statutory Interpretation and State of Punjab vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd., to interpret the Act in light of technological advancements, and found persuasive analogy in the Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Patents.

The impugned orders’ insistence on permanence was found to have no statutory foundation; Section 2(d) nowhere requires the design to be permanently visible or affixed. The court relied on In re: Hruby, where the ornamental display of a fountain was protected despite dependence on external water flow, and K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application, where a watch display visible only when activated was held registrable. The test of noticeability recognised in the Manual of Designs Practice and Procedure further confirmed that features visible only during normal use satisfy the “judged solely by the eye” criterion. The finished-article requirement was satisfied because the GUI forms part of the complete product received by the consumer.

Locarno Class 14-04 explicitly listing Screen Displays and Icons, including Graphical User Interfaces, was acknowledged as indicative of legislative intent following India’s accession to the Locarno Agreement and the 2021 Rules amendment, though classification remains administrative and registration is ultimately subject to Sections 2(a) and 2(d). Dual protection concerns were dispelled through a harmonious reading with the Copyright Act, 1957; a GUI is a visual configuration distinct from both computer programmes (literary works) and pure artistic works. The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd. provided the definitive two-pronged test: first ascertaining whether the work is purely artistic or a design derived from it through industrial application, and second applying functional utility where copyright does not apply. The UST Global (Singapore) order was held to be based on a misconstruction of the Act and was accordingly distinguished. Foreign decisions were accorded persuasive value, consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence in Forasol v. ONGC and the Cryogas case itself.

The court further noted the inconsistent practice within the Designs Office, where several GUIs had already been registered (e.g., Siemens Nos. 274917, 2749178; Kneevoice No. 284680; LG No. 276736), underscoring the absence of any per se exclusion. It emphasised that registration would bring legal certainty, reduce litigation, and encourage innovation without encroaching upon copyright or patent domains.

Judgements with complete citation discussed and decision of court, point of law settled in the case

The judgment extensively discussed and applied several authorities. The Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd 2025 SCC Online SC 780 exhaustively analysed the overlap between the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000, formulating a two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act to distinguish pure artistic works from industrially applied designs and mandating a functional utility inquiry where necessary; the Calcutta High Court adopted this framework to clarify that once GUI features are industrially applied they cease to remain mere artistic works. In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc 137 S.Ct.429 the United States Supreme Court broadly construed “article” to include any thing made by hand or machine, which the court found directly applicable to display screens hosting GUIs. Microsoft Corporation vs. Corel Corporation 5:15-cv-05836-EJD further reinforced that software itself can constitute an article of manufacture. English authorities K.K.Suwa Seikosha's Design Application [1982] R.P.C. 166 and the decision in In re: Hruby 54 C.C.P.A. 1196 were relied upon to establish that designs visible only upon activation or during intended use remain registrable, with permanence being a function of the materials employed rather than a statutory prerequisite. The Federal Court of Australia’s ruling in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 supplied the principle of updating construction for technology-driven legislation. The Controller’s reliance on its own order dated 6 July 2023 in UST Global (Singapore) vs. Controller of Patents and Designs was expressly disapproved as resting on an erroneous limitation of industrial process and an artificial requirement of integrality.

The decision of the court was unanimous in allowing all appeals. The impugned orders dated 1 October 2019 (IPDAID/21/2024), 20 September 2019 (IPDAID/22/2024), 17 February 2025 (IPDAID/1/2025 and IPDAID/2/2025) and 31 May 2024 (IPDAID/3/2025) were set aside in their entirety. All applications were remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration after affording full opportunity of hearing to the respective appellants, directing the authorities to apply the correct legal tests articulated in the judgment.

The point of law settled in the case is that Graphic User Interfaces satisfy the criteria of a “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 2(a) and are eligible for registration on a case-to-case basis when the visual features are applied to an identifiable article by an industrial process (broadly understood to encompass digital rendering) and are judged solely by the eye, with no statutory requirement of permanence, separate saleability, or exclusion on the ground of dual protection with copyright; the inclusion of GUIs in Locarno Class 14-04 further evidences legislative intent to protect digital designs, subject only to the fulfilment of the statutory ingredients.

Case Title: NEC Corporation Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and another

Date of Order: 09.03.2026

Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025 & IPDAID/3/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:71

Name of court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Intellectual Property Rights Division)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Headnote of Article: Calcutta High Court holds that Graphic User Interfaces are registrable as industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000 when applied to an article by any industrial process and judged solely by the eye; the court sets aside Controller’s rejection orders, applies updating construction to digital technologies, distinguishes copyright overlap via Cryogas test, and remands applications for fresh adjudication, thereby settling that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs and aligning Indian law with global digital design protection norms.

NEC Corporation Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and another

Suitable Titles for the Article:

1. Calcutta High Court Landmark Ruling: Graphic User Interfaces Qualify as Registrable Designs under the Designs Act, 2000 – A Purposive Interpretation for the Digital Age
2. GUI Designs No Longer Excluded: In-Depth Analysis of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur’s Judgment Overturning Controller’s Narrow View on Industrial Design Protection
3. From Software Codes to Protectable Designs – Calcutta HC Clarifies Registrability of GUIs in Consolidated Appeals

Suitable Tags: #CalcuttaHighCourt #DesignsAct2000 #GUIRegistration #GraphicUserInterface #IndustrialDesigns #IntellectualPropertyIndia #LocarnoClassification #CryogasEquipment #UpdatingConstruction #IPLaw #DigitalInnovation #ControllerOfPatents #DualProtection #TRIPSCompliance

Introduction

High Court at Calcutta delivered a comprehensive judgment on 9 March 2026 that decisively settles the question of whether Graphic User Interfaces can be registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000. The Court examined the statutory definitions of “article” and “design”, rejected the Controller’s unduly restrictive interpretation, and held that GUIs are not per se ineligible for protection. The ruling underscores that a GUI, comprising iconography, layout, colour schemes, composition of lines and ornamentation, inherently satisfies the visual features contemplated by Section 2(d) when applied to an article such as a display screen or finished electronic device through an industrial process broadly understood to include digital rendering. 

By invoking principles of updating construction to accommodate technological evolution and drawing persuasive value from both Indian and foreign precedents, the court has not only set aside multiple rejection orders but has also aligned Indian design law with international practices prevalent in 92 per cent of jurisdictions as per WIPO surveys. This decision heralds greater legal certainty for technology companies, reduces potential litigation, and ensures that India remains competitive in protecting digital assets under the Hague Agreement and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.

Factual Background

The appeals stemmed from a series of design applications filed by leading global and Indian entities seeking protection for innovative GUIs displayed on electronic screens. NEC Corporation’s application No. 285453 claimed novelty residing in the shape and pattern of a display screen hosting a GUI, which the Controller rejected on the ground that the GUI itself does not constitute an article under Section 2(a) and is merely software codes lacking permanence. 

ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH’s application No. 277243, initially titled “A Display Unit for a High Frequency Generator” and later amended to “Display Screen for an Electrosurgical High Frequency Generator”, was turned down because the GUI was visible only when the device was switched on and connected to a computing system, rendering it purely functional without consistent eye appeal. 

Abiomed Inc. faced rejection of applications Nos. 397600-001 and 397600-002 for “Display Panel or Portion thereof with Graphical User Interface” intended for vehicle dashboards, the Controller holding that the pictogram displayed on the screen could not be registered. 

TVS Motor Company Limited’s application No. 393339-001 for a GUI design was refused on the additional ground that it lacked reasons in the order, amounting to violation of natural justice, and that a GUI cannot be judged solely by the eye or possess a sense of touch. In each instance the Controller proceeded on the premise that the 2021 amendment to the Design Rules incorporating GUI under Locarno Class 14-04 was merely administrative and could not override the unamended definitions in the parent Act, that GUIs are not applied by industrial means, cannot be sold or manufactured separately, and are already protected under copyright as artistic works, precluding dual protection.

Reasoning:The court commenced its analysis by setting out the positive and negative limbs of Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, emphasising that the definition is not confined to physical tangibility but extends to any features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article by any industrial process, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, and judged solely by the eye. 

It clarified that the design and the article are distinct; the relevant article for a GUI may be the display unit itself or the finished consumer product such as a smartphone, tablet or automobile dashboard. The expression “article of manufacture” received a liberal interpretation, drawing upon the United States Supreme Court’s observation in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc. that it covers “a thing made by hand or machine”, and the subsequent recognition in Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Corp. that even software qualifies. The court rejected the fallacy that every article must possess physical embodiment, noting that such a narrow approach would permanently exclude digital and virtual designs.

Turning to the phrase “applied to an article by any industrial process”, the judgment highlighted that the word “any” preceding “industrial process” is deliberately expansive and not limited to the illustrative manual, mechanical or chemical methods. 

The process of displaying a GUI involves systematic manipulation of electronic signals and precise rendering by advanced hardware, fitting squarely within modern industrial enterprise. The court applied the doctrine of updating construction, citing Bennion on Statutory Interpretation and State of Punjab vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd., to interpret the Act in light of technological advancements, and found persuasive analogy in the Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Patents.

The impugned orders’ insistence on permanence was found to have no statutory foundation; Section 2(d) nowhere requires the design to be permanently visible or affixed. The court relied on In re: Hruby, where the ornamental display of a fountain was protected despite dependence on external water flow, and K.K. Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application, where a watch display visible only when activated was held registrable. The test of noticeability recognised in the Manual of Designs Practice and Procedure further confirmed that features visible only during normal use satisfy the “judged solely by the eye” criterion. The finished-article requirement was satisfied because the GUI forms part of the complete product received by the consumer.

Locarno Class 14-04 explicitly listing Screen Displays and Icons, including Graphical User Interfaces, was acknowledged as indicative of legislative intent following India’s accession to the Locarno Agreement and the 2021 Rules amendment, though classification remains administrative and registration is ultimately subject to Sections 2(a) and 2(d). Dual protection concerns were dispelled through a harmonious reading with the Copyright Act, 1957; a GUI is a visual configuration distinct from both computer programmes (literary works) and pure artistic works. 

The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd. provided the definitive two-pronged test: first ascertaining whether the work is purely artistic or a design derived from it through industrial application, and second applying functional utility where copyright does not apply. The UST Global (Singapore) order was held to be based on a misconstruction of the Act and was accordingly distinguished. Foreign decisions were accorded persuasive value, consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence in Forasol v. ONGC and the Cryogas case itself.

The court further noted the inconsistent practice within the Designs Office, where several GUIs had already been registered (e.g., Siemens Nos. 274917, 2749178; Kneevoice No. 284680; LG No. 276736), underscoring the absence of any per se exclusion. It emphasised that registration would bring legal certainty, reduce litigation, and encourage innovation without encroaching upon copyright or patent domains.

Judgements with complete citation discussed and decision of court, point of law settled in the case

The judgment extensively discussed and applied several authorities. The Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd 2025 SCC Online SC 780 exhaustively analysed the overlap between the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000, formulating a two-pronged test under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act to distinguish pure artistic works from industrially applied designs and mandating a functional utility inquiry where necessary; the Calcutta High Court adopted this framework to clarify that once GUI features are industrially applied they cease to remain mere artistic works. In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc 137 S.Ct.429 the United States Supreme Court broadly construed “article” to include any thing made by hand or machine, which the court found directly applicable to display screens hosting GUIs. Microsoft Corporation vs. Corel Corporation 5:15-cv-05836-EJD further reinforced that software itself can constitute an article of manufacture. English authorities K.K.Suwa Seikosha's Design Application [1982] R.P.C. 166 and the decision in In re: Hruby 54 C.C.P.A. 1196 were relied upon to establish that designs visible only upon activation or during intended use remain registrable, with permanence being a function of the materials employed rather than a statutory prerequisite. The Federal Court of Australia’s ruling in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 supplied the principle of updating construction for technology-driven legislation. The Controller’s reliance on its own order dated 6 July 2023 in UST Global (Singapore) vs. Controller of Patents and Designs was expressly disapproved as resting on an erroneous limitation of industrial process and an artificial requirement of integrality.

The decision of the court was unanimous in allowing all appeals. The impugned orders dated 1 October 2019 (IPDAID/21/2024), 20 September 2019 (IPDAID/22/2024), 17 February 2025 (IPDAID/1/2025 and IPDAID/2/2025) and 31 May 2024 (IPDAID/3/2025) were set aside in their entirety. All applications were remanded to the Controller for fresh consideration after affording full opportunity of hearing to the respective appellants, directing the authorities to apply the correct legal tests articulated in the judgment.

The point of law settled in the case is that Graphic User Interfaces satisfy the criteria of a “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 2(a) and are eligible for registration on a case-to-case basis when the visual features are applied to an identifiable article by an industrial process (broadly understood to encompass digital rendering) and are judged solely by the eye, with no statutory requirement of permanence, separate saleability, or exclusion on the ground of dual protection with copyright; the inclusion of GUIs in Locarno Class 14-04 further evidences legislative intent to protect digital designs, subject only to the fulfilment of the statutory ingredients.

Case Title: NEC Corporation Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs and another

Date of Order: 09.03.2026

Case Number: IPDAID/21/2024, IPDAID/22/2024, IPDAID/1/2025, IPDAID/2/2025 & IPDAID/3/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:71

Name of court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Intellectual Property Rights Division)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Headnote of Article

Calcutta High Court holds that Graphic User Interfaces are registrable as industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000 when applied to an article by any industrial process and judged solely by the eye; the court sets aside Controller’s rejection orders, applies updating construction to digital technologies, distinguishes copyright overlap via Cryogas test, and remands applications for fresh adjudication, thereby settling that there is no per se exclusion for GUIs and aligning Indian law with global digital design protection norms.

Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors.

Introduction

This is a comprehensive, page-by-page analysis of the judgment dated 28 February 2026 delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia in the High Court of Delhi in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 & I.A. 20715/2025 titled Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. (reported as a 50-page judgment). The matter is a commercial intellectual property division (IPD) patent appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the Assistant Controller’s order dated 28 March 2023 rejecting Indian Patent Application No. 2228/DEL/2011 titled “Herbicidal Composition for Field Crops”. Simultaneously, the court decided I.A. 20715/2025 filed by Respondent No. 2 (Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers’ Association) under Rule 6(v)(xii) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 read with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and Section 151 CPC, seeking to place 11 additional prior-art documents on record. The judgment meticulously records the I.A. arguments, analyses relevancy of the new documents via a detailed mapping table (paras 7–10), grants leave under IPD Rules 6(iv)–(v), and proceeds to dismiss the main appeal after recording exhaustive factual, procedural, and substantive submissions. The core theme is the strict patentability threshold under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(e), the liberal admission of relevant public-domain prior art in patent appeals for public-interest reasons, and the requirement of demonstrable synergy at the filing stage. The court ultimately upholds the Controller’s rejection, reinforcing that incremental agrochemical compositions without proven technical advance beyond additive effects are non-patentable.

Factual Background

The Appellant, Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. (formerly Crystal Phosphates Ltd.), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of agro-chemicals, including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, plant-growth regulators, and micronutrients. Its products address the entire crop lifecycle from sowing to harvesting and aim to maximise farmer productivity in India.

On 5 August 2011, the Appellant filed the Subject Application (No. 2228/DEL/2011) before the Patent Office, Delhi, claiming a “synergistic herbicidal ready-to-use composition” for controlling major unwanted vegetation in a wide variety of field crops (particularly sugarcane). The complete specification was filed on 6 August 2012. The claimed composition comprises:

• First active ingredient: halosulfuron-methyl (10–15% w/w) – a sulfonylurea-class systemic herbicide absorbed by roots/leaves, translocated to meristems, inhibiting synthesis of valine, leucine, and isoleucine, causing rapid cessation of cell division and plant growth.
• Second active ingredient: metribuzin (50–60% w/w) – a triazinone-class selective systemic herbicide that inhibits photosynthetic electron transport in photosystem II, disrupting plant growth and leading to weed death.
• Tribenuron-methyl is described as “optional” and non-contributory to efficacy.

The object of the invention is to achieve a synergistic effect where each active ingredient “significantly enhances and abets the activity of the other” at specific low dosages, enabling visual efficacy assessment, better adhesion, selectivity, and minimal phytotoxicity to sugarcane. Field-trial data in Table-1 of the specification allegedly demonstrates enhanced % control of weeds (Cyperus rotundus, Amaranthus spp., Dactyloctenium spp., Brachiaria spp.) at reduced total active-ingredient dosage compared to individual applications. No comparative efficacy data vis-à-vis the closest prior art (especially GWN-9889) was submitted at filing. The invention is positioned as overcoming limitations of prior single- or ternary-herbicide formulations.

Procedural Background

The procedural timeline, as recorded verbatim in paras 14–21 of the judgment, is as follows:

• 10 October 2012: Request for examination filed.
• 8 February 2013: Publication under Section 11A.
• 16 March 2017: Pre-Grant Opposition I filed by Respondent No. 2 (Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers’ Association) under Section 25(1).
• 5 January 2018: First Examination Report (FER) issued.
• 2 May 2018: Reply to FER filed by Appellant.
• 20 July 2021: Reply Statement I to Opposition I filed.
• 7 January 2022: Pre-Grant Opposition II filed by Respondent No. 3 (Dr. Meera Sharma) under Section 25(1).
• 15 October 2022: Reply Statement II (with claim amendments) filed by Appellant.
• 21 November 2022: Replication filed by Respondent No. 3.
• 23 December 2022: Hearing notice issued; hearing fixed for 2 February 2023.
• 15 February 2023: Appellant’s petition under Rule 138 for one-month extension to file post-hearing written submissions.
• 17 February 2023: Post-hearing written submissions filed by both opponents.
• 7 March 2023: Form-13 minor amendments filed by Appellant.
• 9 March 2023: Appellant’s written submissions filed.
• 28 March 2023: Impugned Order passed by Assistant Controller rejecting claims 1–7 on three grounds: (a) not an invention under Section 2(1)(ja); (b) no inventive step under Section 25(1)(e) in view of cited prior arts; (c) not patentable under Section 3(e) as mere admixture (Section 25(1)(f)).

The appeal was filed on 19 August 2023. On 19 August 2025, Respondent No. 2 filed I.A. 20715/2025 for additional documents. The court heard the I.A. first, then the main appeal.

Core Dispute

The twin issues before the court were:

1. Admissibility of additional prior-art documents (11 EPA/USDA registrations, university publications, product labels, and scientific articles listed in para 2) at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and IPD Rules 6(v)(xii). The Appellant opposed on grounds of lack of due diligence, multiple pre-grant opportunities missed, and no “substantial cause” shown. Respondent No. 2 asserted public-interest necessity for complete prior-art evaluation in a monopoly (action-in-rem) matter.
2. Patentability of the binary composition under Sections 2(1)(ja) (inventive step/technical advance) and 3(e) (mere admixture). The Appellant claimed unexpected synergy at specific ratios proved by Table-1. Respondents/ Controller contended the combination was obvious over GWN-9889 (nearly identical ratios), WO 2009/015064 A2 (tank-mix 1:3 ratio showing 99% control), US 5,990,048 (metribuzin + sulfonylurea), and other documents; no efficacy data distinguished it from prior art, and dosage escalation in Table-1 showed only additive (not synergistic) effect.

Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Appellant (Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian)

• I.A.: Documents were publicly available pre-filing (EPA records) but not filed before Controller despite multiple opportunities (Sections 25(1)/(2), Rules 55, 60, 62, 128). No case under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(a)–(b) CPC – no refusal by Controller, no due diligence shown, no lacuna in record. Filing after two years of appeal shows “clear lack of diligence”. Law mandates act be done in prescribed manner only (Akebia Therapeutics INC. v. Controller General of Patents, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4841). Patent validity challengeable post-grant (Sections 25(2), 64), so additional evidence unnecessary. No “substantial cause” – mere difficulty insufficient (K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 216; Wadi v. Amilal, (2015) 1 SCC 677; N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy, (2001) 7 SCC 503; Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148). Allowing documents would let opponent “patch up” case and make fresh case (Md. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam, 1983 SCC OnLine Gau 8; Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal, 1876 SCC OnLine PC 12).
• Merits: D1 (GWN-9889) teaches away – tribenuron-methyl essential; removing it is hindsight. Halosulfuron-methyl not obvious substitute for sulfosulfuron (structural differences shown in diagram). Table-1 proves synergy at reduced dosage. Section 3(e) overcome – enhanced control despite lower total a.i. is unexpected. Controller ignored synergy data.

Respondents (Controller via CGSC Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj; R-2 via Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman & team)

• I.A.: Onus on Appellant to prove inventive step (Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1). Statutory duty to disclose all prior art in specification (Patent Manual). Documents vital for adjudication; Appellant admitted their necessity. Admission under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) for “pronouncement of proper judgment”. Patent grant creates no presumption of validity; examination not infallible (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2009 (40) PTC 125 (Del)). Public interest in scrutinising monopolies overrides strict procedural bars (Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Controller, 2025:DHC:158). Public-domain status does not imply opponent’s knowledge; duty was on Applicant. Application decided conjointly with appeal (Eastern Equipment & Sales Ltd. v. Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008 (12) SCC 739; Savitri Devi v. Gayatri Devi, 2010 (114) DRJ 327, etc.). Order XLI Rule 27 permits admission even if not strictly relevant if necessary for justice (K. Venkataramiah (supra); Wadi (supra)). Patent is action-in-rem (Golden Tobie Pvt. Ltd. 2021:DHC:1820).
• Merits: No efficacy data furnished (Novartis). GWN-9889 discloses identical actives in overlapping ratios; WO 2009/015064 A2 tank-mix shows 99% control at 1:3 ratio; US 5,990,048 + sulfonylurea class makes substitution obvious. Table-1 shows efficacy increases with dosage – additive, not synergistic. Section 3(e) bar not overcome; synergy must be demonstrated by comparison at filing.

Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge

I.A. 20715/2025 (paras 5–12): The court held the documents “highly pertinent” to resolve the dispute (para 5). Respondent No. 2 became aware during case preparation (para 6). The detailed relevancy table (para 7) mapped each document to claim features:

• Composition ratios overlap with GWN-9889 (EPA records paras 5(a)–(e)).
• Sugarcane targeting and PSITA motivation to omit tribenuron-methyl (EPA data).
• Functional similarity (sulfonylurea group, PPO/PSII inhibition – University of Hertfordshire/California articles, product labels).
• Alternative combinations (Carfentrazone-ethyl label, US 5,900,048) showing obvious substitution for sugarcane use.

Paras 8–10 explain relevance: documents discuss active ingredients targeting sugarcane, PPO 14(E) function, metribuzin’s photosynthesis inhibition, and sulfonylurea class equivalence. Under IPD Rules 6(iv)–(v) (reproduced verbatim in para 11), additional documents are admissible with leave when relevance is specified; principles akin to Order XLI Rule 27 CPC apply. Court allowed the I.A., taking documents on record “as they enable proper judgement” (para 12).

Main Appeal (paras 13–30+): The court reproduced the full factual matrix (paras 14–21), impugned order grounds (para 21), and exhaustive submissions of both sides (paras 22–23). On merits, the judge applied the Roche five-step obviousness framework (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., Neutral Citation 2015:DHC:9674) and held the combination obvious over GWN-9889, WO 2009/015064 A2, and US 5,990,048. Synergy under Section 3(e) was not demonstrated by comparison at filing (Patent Manual Clause 5.3.5 quoted). Table-1 showed only dosage-dependent additive effect, not true synergy (Best Agrolife Ltd. v. Deputy Controller, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1982; Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482). Hindsight arguments rejected; no technical advance proved (Novartis AG (supra)). Controller’s order was reasoned and non-perverse.

Final Decision of Court

I.A. 20715/2025 is allowed; the 11 additional documents are taken on record. The main appeal C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 is dismissed. The impugned order dated 28 March 2023 rejecting the patent application is upheld in its entirety. No order as to costs.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

1. Liberal admission of additional prior-art in IPD patent appeals: Public-domain documents relevant to Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(e) can be admitted under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC and IPD Rule 6(v) even late in appeal if they enable “proper pronouncement of judgment” and serve public interest in preventing unwarranted monopolies (action-in-rem). Strict due-diligence bar is relaxed; I.A. decided conjointly with merits.
2. Synergy under Section 3(e) must be proved at filing: Mere admixture of known actives is non-patentable unless the specification itself shows combinative effect “beyond the sum of individual effects” by direct comparison. Post-filing or appellate data cannot cure the defect; dosage-escalation efficacy is not synergy.
3. Obviousness in herbicide cases: PSITA is motivated to combine/substitute same-class actives or modify known ternary mixtures when ratios overlap and crop/use matches. Hindsight avoided by strict Roche five-step test.
4. Appellate review of Controller orders: Interference only on perversity; well-reasoned prior-art mapping and synergy analysis is upheld.

Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors..

Date of Order: 28/02/2026

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1828

Name of court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suitable Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Opens Door for Late Evidence in Patent Appeals to Protect Public Interest
2. Landmark Ruling on Admitting Fresh Records in Intellectual Property Challenges
3. How Public Interest Trumps Strict Timelines in Patent Validity Disputes

Suitable Tags: #PatentLaw #DelhiHighCourt #AdditionalEvidence #IntellectualProperty #PatentOpposition #PublicInterest #IPAppeals #CPCOrder41

Headnote: Delhi High Court permits additional prior art documents in a pending patent appeal, holding that public interest in correct patent decisions outweighs procedural delays when the materials are relevant to assessing inventiveness.

Abbott Products Operations AG Vs Ms. Aprajita Sushma

Factual and Procedural Background:

Abbott, a long-standing healthcare company founded in the late 1800s and active in India since 1910, created and registered the brand name Pankreoflat in 1964 for a medicine that helps with stomach problems like bloating, and has sold it continuously since the 1970s with growing sales and heavy advertising. 

In 2021, a smaller firm named Alrom Pharmaceuticals registered a similar-sounding name Kreoflat for the exact same type of stomach medicine. Abbott discovered this in October 2024, sent a warning letter asking the firm to stop, but got no cooperation, so Abbott filed a court request in 2025 to cancel the newer registration due to likely customer mix-ups.

Core Dispute:

The main fight is whether Kreoflat copies Pankreoflat too closely in sound, look, and structure, risking confusion among buyers for identical gut health products, with Abbott arguing their older use and fame give them stronger rights, while the other side claims the names are totally different and their adoption was honest with its own growing popularity.

Reasoning and Decision of Court:

The court reviewed Abbott's strong proof like old sales receipts, accountant reports on sales jumping from about 21 million rupees in 2017 to 35 million in 2024, and ad spending over 14 million rupees, plus the lack of any real defense or evidence from the other side, who didn't even file a proper response. It agreed the names are confusingly alike, especially for medicines where mistakes could harm health, and sided with Abbott's prior rights over the newer registration. The court ordered the removal of Kreoflat from the official list, allowing both names to coexist would weaken Abbott's trusted brand.

Law Point Settled in the Case:

For drug brands, courts apply a tough standard—even small similarities can lead to cancellation to protect public safety and reward the first honest user over later copies.

Abbott Products Operations AG Vs Ms. Aprajita Sushma :26.02.2026, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025:2026:DHC:1721: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Cyber law  #LegalNews  #IndianIPUpdate  #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Daikin Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents

Factual and Procedural Background:

Daikin, a Japanese company, applied for an Indian patent in June 2022 for a better version of a device that transfers heat efficiently, like in air conditioners, claiming priority from a January 2020 Japanese filing and an international application. The patent office reviewed it, pointed out similarities to an old 1972 US patent, and rejected it in April 2024 for not being original enough. Daikin appealed to the Delhi High Court, offering to revise their description to match a version already approved by the US patent office, which had also looked at the same old US document.

Core Dispute:

The key issue was whether Daikin's heat transfer device added anything truly new compared to the decades-old US invention, and if they should be allowed to refine their application details right there in the appeal court to address the rejection.

Reasoning and Decision of Court:

The court explained that appeal judges can approve tweaks to patent applications if they just clarify or narrow the original idea without adding fresh concepts, based on recent similar cases. Here, the proposed changes mirrored the US-approved wording, stayed within the original filing's boundaries, and didn't expand the scope, so they were greenlit. The rejection order was overturned, and the case was sent back to the patent office for a new review after Daikin submits the updated version, with a two-month deadline to decide, but no final call on originality.

Law Point Settled in the Case:

Appeals courts have the power to let inventors adjust patent claims mid-appeal, as long as adjustments are limited to disclaimers, fixes, or explanations that fit the original submission without broadening it, ensuring fair chances for valid innovations.

Daikin Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs:26.02.2026: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 56/2024: Justice Jyoti Singh.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Cyber law  #LegalNews  #IndianIPUpdate  #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Britannia Industries Ltd Vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd

Britannia Industries Ltd filed a lawsuit against Desi Bites Snacks Pvt Ltd and others seeking a permanent injunction to stop them from using the 'GOOD DAY' trademark on confectionery like soan papdi, claiming they only became aware of this use in October 2024, and initially obtained a temporary court order halting the defendants' sales without notice, but this was later lifted by mutual agreement in February 2025 and the case was sent for mediation.

Later, Britannia applied to amend their complaint to include details of a prior 2018 rectification petition against a related 'GOOD DAY' registration for papad and to add Jai Food Products and its proprietor Roop Chand Agarwal as new defendants, arguing they were necessary for resolving the full dispute since Roop Chand held a 2005 trademark registration for 'GOOD DAY' on papad and was a director of Desi Bites.

In response, Desi Bites and another defendant filed an application accusing Britannia and its representative Omar Waziri of perjury for deliberately hiding prior knowledge of Roop Chand's mark and misrepresenting Desi Bites as a new entrant to create false urgency, pointing to errors in company details and addresses in the original filing.

The core dispute centered on whether Britannia's omissions were intentional lies warranting criminal perjury proceedings and if the court should allow the amendments and additions of parties.

The court reasoned that perjury requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood for personal gain, but here the mistakes stemmed from genuine confusion over similar company names on product packaging versus official records, with no proof of intent to deceive, especially since Britannia's signer joined in 2021 unaware of the 2018 proceedings, and suppressing facts inadvertently did not justify perjury as it must be exceptional and based on unimpeachable evidence rather than suspicion.

On amendments, the court noted they should be liberally granted to address the real issues without procedural barriers unless mala fide, and here they clarified the dispute without prejudice.

Similarly, adding the new parties was essential as Roop Chand's registration and role made them key to fair adjudication. The court dismissed the perjury application, approved the plaint amendment and impleadment of the new defendants, directed filing of updated documents and responses, and set timelines for further steps.

Britannia Industries Ltd Vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd:28/02/2026:CS(COMM) 983/2024:2026:DHC:1826:Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd Vs Smt Jyotsana Dubey

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd, a company providing trusteeship services, acted as debenture trustee for loans totaling Rs.77 crores taken by Defendant No.2, a tech solutions firm, with Defendant No.1's New Delhi property mortgaged as security through deposit of title deeds after its purchase in 2006 following inheritance and conversion to freehold, and various agreements like debenture trust deeds, hypothecation, share pledges and personal guarantees were executed in 2023 and 2024, but breaches occurred leading to default notices in October 2025 demanding over Rs.40 crores with Defendant No.2 admitting liability via email in January 2026 without payment, prompting the Plaintiff to file a commercial suit in February 2026 seeking a mortgage decree for Rs.3.91 crores based on property valuation, sale of the property, permanent bar on redemption and costs, along with an application for exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act claiming urgency to prevent third-party interests, and another for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC to restrain alienation of the property.

The core dispute was whether the suit contemplated urgent interim relief to exempt it from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The court reasoned by referring to Supreme Court precedents like Patil Automation emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 12A unless genuine urgency exists, Yamini Manohar requiring courts to scrutinize if urgency is not a disguise based on plaint averments, Novenco finding urgency in continuing IP infringements as each act is a fresh wrong, and Chandra Kishore stating urgency is determined by the plaintiff's pleadings, but found in this case the claims of urgency were vague and bald since the property was already mortgaged with no evidence of imminent third-party creation, distinguishing it from ongoing wrongs, thus no real urgency warranted exemption. The court dismissed the exemption application, returned the plaint with liberty to refile after mediation, and disposed of all pending applications.

Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd Vs Smt Jyotsana Dubey:24.02.2026: CS(COMM) 177/2026: Subramonium Prasad.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

International Business Machines Corp Vs Tivoli Gardens

International Business Machines Corporation, known as IBM, a global tech company, acquired the 'TIVOLI' trademark in 1996 from Tivoli Systems Inc. and has used it for decades in IT management software, applying for its registration in India in 2003 under Class 42 for computer services. Tivoli Gardens, a hospitality business using 'TIVOLI' and 'TIVOLI GARDENS' marks since 1994, opposed this application in 2006, claiming prior use. IBM filed a counter-statement in 2011, which the Trade Marks Registry served on Tivoli Gardens in 2019, requiring them to submit evidence within two months or face abandonment of their opposition. Tivoli Gardens failed to do so until 2022, when they filed evidence late along with a petition to excuse the delay, blaming their former lawyer and COVID-19 disruptions. The Registrar allowed this petition in April 2025, reviving the opposition. IBM appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing the rules set strict, non-extendable deadlines and the Registrar had no power to condone such a long delay. The core dispute was whether the Registrar could overlook the two-month evidence filing deadline under the Trade Marks Rules (either 2002 or 2017 versions, as both are mandatory). The court examined records showing proper service in 2019, ruled that the deadlines are absolute with no discretion for extension, noted Tivoli Gardens' pattern of delays in this and other cases, and held that blaming a lawyer isn't enough excuse without the party's own diligence. The court decided in IBM's favor, setting aside the Registrar's order, deeming the opposition abandoned, and allowing IBM's trademark application to proceed after over 22 years of wait.

International Business Machines Corp Vs Tivoli Gardens:28/02/2026, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2025 : 2026:DHC:1831: Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

FinTree Education Pvt Ltd, which runs finance education courses and registered the trademark “FINTREE” in 2012 for its services, sued Fintree Finance Pvt Ltd in 2019 for copying the same name on its finance business and asked for an immediate stop order.

The defendant opposed the injunction. In 2021 the plaintiffs added a passing-off claim by amending the plaint (allowed in 2023), but later realised some supporting documents and a clear prayer for passing off in the injunction motion were missing. In 2025 they filed this second amendment application to add fresh documents (updated registration, new invoices, client reviews, website screenshots, branch proofs) and clarify pleadings.

The defendant strongly opposed, arguing six years had passed, most documents were available earlier, the plaintiffs were careless, and the strict disclosure rules of the Commercial Courts Act do not allow late additions without strong reasons.

The judge examined the Commercial Courts Act rules on document disclosure, noted that some documents genuinely came into existence only after the suit or were needed to answer the defendant’s defence, while others were available earlier and could not be added now.

He held that at the pre-trial stage amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if they help decide the real dispute without changing its basic nature, and intellectual property cases deserve protection against ongoing infringement. On 20 February 2026 the Bombay High Court partly allowed the application: it permitted the new documents that came into existence later and the clarificatory pleadings/amendments in the plaint and injunction motion for passing off, but rejected the older documents that should have been filed earlier; no costs were awarded.

Title: FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 20.02.2026:Commercial IP Suit No. 234 of 2021:2026:BHC:OS:5031:BombHC: Arif S. Doctor, H.J..

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Zee Laboratories Ltd

GlaxoSmithKline, a big global healthcare company with over 100 years in India, sells antibiotic capsules called PHEXIN since 1985 under a registered trademark and distinctive green-and-white packaging to treat infections.

In 2025 it found Zee Laboratories selling skin ointments under very similar sounding names FEXIT, FEXIT-B and FEXIT-M with almost identical green-and-white boxes. GSK sent legal notices asking Zee to stop, but Zee ignored them, so GSK filed a suit in Delhi High Court and asked for an immediate order to stop the use.

Zee agreed in court to drop one name FEXIN straight away but fought the others, claiming the names are different, the products are totally different (capsules versus ointments), they have been selling since 2007 without any complaints, the prefix FEXI is common in the market, and there is no real confusion because doctors prescribe both.

GSK replied that in medicines even small sound-alike names are dangerous, the first part of the name matters most, doctors’ handwriting is often bad, pharmacists can mix them up, and delay does not matter when copying is dishonest.

The judge compared the names and packaging, noted they sound almost the same and look alike, said medicines need extra strict protection because mistakes can harm health, found GSK has strong reputation from long use and advertising, ruled the prefix is not proven common in actual trade, and held Zee gave no good reason for choosing such similar names. On 28 February 2026 the court granted the interim injunction, stopping Zee, its directors, dealers and everyone connected from using FEXIT, FEXIT-B, FEXIT-M or any similar mark or green-white packaging for ointments until the full trial, because GSK made a strong case, balance of convenience favoured GSK, and delay would harm its goodwill.

Title: Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Zee Laboratories Ltd.:28.02.2026:CS(COMM) 896/2025: 2026:DHC:1832:Tejas Karia, H.J..

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Terix Computer Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs TPM Guru Pvt. Ltd.

Terix Computer Service India Pvt Ltd runs an IT maintenance business across the world using its own special software and tools that it developed since 2002. In 2021 it noticed many clients suddenly stopping renewals and discovered that two of its own directors had secretly started a new company called TPM Guru Pvt Ltd, diverted over 115 client contracts worth more than ₹3.70 crore, used Terix staff and parts to serve those clients, copied Terix software, and even froze Terix bank accounts to force an “exit” deal. Terix filed a civil suit in Delhi High Court asking for an order to stop the copying and for damages. The new company and the directors filed an application saying two earlier written agreements (one from 2020 called Collaboration Agreement and one from 2021 called Exit Agreement) contained clear arbitration clauses that required all disputes to be decided by a private arbitrator in Noida instead of court. Terix objected, arguing the case was about copyright theft (which courts alone should decide), the agreements were invalid or already finished, and not every defendant had signed them. The judge carefully read the agreements, the plaint, and Supreme Court rulings like Vidya Drolia and Cox & Kings. He found that the heart of the fight arose directly from the business relationship created by those agreements, the copyright claims were tied to what happened under the contract and not purely a public right, and even non-signatories could be included because the whole matter formed one connected transaction. On 28 February 2026 the court allowed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referred the entire dispute to arbitration, and the civil suit was sent to the arbitrator for final decision.

Title: Terix Computer Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs TPM Guru Pvt. Ltd. , Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 783/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Rakesh Goyal

Hindustan Lever (now Unilever) and Procter & Gamble are giant companies that make everyday products like Fair & Lovely cream, Sunsilk shampoo, Lux soap, Ponds, Ariel detergent, Head & Shoulders and many more, all sold with special packaging and famous brand names.

In 2002 and 2003 police raids at the shops of Rakesh Goyal and his family in Delhi caught them selling cheap fake copies of these exact products, packed in almost identical bottles and boxes.

Even after the raids the defendants kept making and selling the counterfeits, so the companies filed this lawsuit in 2018 asking the court to stop them forever, punish them and make them pay for the losses. The court quickly gave a stop order in 2005 that stayed till the end, framed issues, and later the defendants stopped coming to court and gave no evidence or reply.

The judge studied the trademark registrations, copyright in the packaging designs, raid seizure memos and the companies’ huge sales records, and found that the fakes were clearly copied to trick customers and ride on the real brands’ reputation.

On 28 February 2026 the court passed a final decree permanently stopping Rakesh Goyal, his family and anyone connected with them from making, selling or advertising any fake versions of these products, ordered them to jointly pay Rs 2,50,000 as damages within four weeks (with 9% interest if late) and also made them pay the companies’ full actual legal costs.

Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Rakesh Goyal: 28.02.2026:CS(COMM) 256/2018: 2026:DHC:1821:Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Novartis AG Vs Noviets Pharma

Novartis AG, a global pharmaceutical giant, has been using its famous trademark “NOVARTIS” in India since 1996 and built huge reputation through massive sales and advertising. In 2024 it discovered a Bihar-based group called Noviets Pharma selling medicines and veterinary products under the very similar name “NOVIETS” on websites like IndiaMart.

Novartis sent legal notices and opposed their trademark but received no proper reply, so it filed a suit in the Delhi High Court asking for an immediate order to stop the use. The defendants argued the court had no jurisdiction because their business is in Bihar, the marks look and sound different, and they only use “NOVIETS” as a company name, not a brand.

The judge first ruled that Delhi has jurisdiction because the defendants’ IndiaMart page lists a Delhi address and their online presence reaches customers here.

He then compared the two marks and found “NOVIETS” is so close to “NOVARTIS” in spelling, sound and look that ordinary buyers, especially with doctors’ handwriting, could easily mix them up — especially dangerous for medicines.

Novartis proved its strong goodwill with huge sales figures, while the defendants could not explain why they chose such a similar name and had even tried to register it themselves. The court said this was a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off, the balance of convenience favoured Novartis, and any delay would harm its reputation.

On 28 February 2026 the court granted the interim injunction, stopping the defendants and everyone connected with them from using “NOVIETS” or any similar mark for pharmaceutical or veterinary products until the full trial is over.

Title: Novartis AG Vs Noviets Pharma: 28.02.2026:CS(COMM) 218/2024:2026:DHC:1827:Tejas Karia, H.J..

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited Vs Google LLC

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited, which runs TV9 news channels, uploaded videos on YouTube about real events like hurricanes, heavy snow, floods, the Israel-Hamas war and a Chinese spy balloon, using very short clips of raw footage to explain the news to the public. Some American and Turkish media companies claimed copyright in those tiny clips and sent repeated strike notices to YouTube, threatening to shut down TV9 channels if the videos stayed up. TV9 said the clips were too small to matter, showed only plain facts of nature and current affairs that no one can own, and were used fairly just for honest news reporting. When TV9 tried to talk, the companies demanded secret business records and later filed a case in America but quietly dropped it against TV9’s channels. Google, as the platform owner, stayed neutral and only followed its rules. The companies never filed any reply or appeared in the Delhi High Court despite being served many times, so the court treated their claims as untrue. The judge looked at the videos and saw the clips lasted only seconds inside much longer news stories full of TV9’s own commentary, making the use fair and too tiny to harm anyone under Indian law. On 28 February 2026 the court gave summary judgment without needing a full trial, declared that TV9’s videos do not infringe any copyright, and permanently stopped the companies from sending any more groundless threats or strike notices against these videos.

Title: Associated Broadcasting Co Ltd. Vs Google LLC: 28.02.2026:CS(COMM) 9/2024:2026:DHC:1833:Tejas Karia, H.J.

Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi